Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Restrictions

[Indy Texas]

To me, that depends on the motives of the people creating those laws. Are they trying to use regulate guns out of existence on purpose? If so, then yes the comparison is valid. If they are legitimately just trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands and improve safety, then no, it wouldn't be valid. As for pro-lifers and these abortion laws - It's painfully obvious that it has nothing to do with the well-being of the women as health professionals have told them time and time again that those regulations are not necessary and wouldn't help at all. Of course those Republican lawmakers know this, and it's easy to say "oh it's for the health of the woman" when it's blatantly not their purpose. Pretty much the same idea behind Republicans and their voting restrictions. When in doubt, claim they are for preventing voter fraud, even when what they are doing would have no effect on voter fraud one way or another.

Laws are created for humans by humans. They don't have to be rational and in fact, sometimes they should not be rational. If laws have to be rational, we should abolish federal holidays because they reduce our productivity. Most developed countries have tougher voter ID laws than most US states, and you don't see widespread moaning in those countries. Protecting the sanctity of the ballot box is important, regardless of whether there is widespread fraud occurring or not.

I agree that most of these restrictions are intended to reduce the number of abortions and are not designed to improve health outcomes. However, abortion laws in the US remain more permissive in general than Europe, so you cannot really argue that Republicans are taking away abortion rights. I support these types of restrictions, because while they might not be my first choice method of reducing abortions, they get the job done. When it comes to the defense of life, the end always justifies the means.

Our constitution provides very broad rights to things like speech, privacy and firearms that result in quirky Americanisms like multibillion-dollar arms races masquerading as elections, abortion on demand in many localities, and the inalienable God-given right to a semi-automatic assault weapon.

You bring up Europe as though America is required by some law of nature to be "to the right" of Europe in all things.

I consider myself pro-choice but am not absolutist about it, and I would potentially be willing to "compromise" with pro-lifers and get rid of abortion in most circumstances if it were coupled with universal healthcare and a much larger social safety net to minimize the negative social and economic externalities created by unwanted children.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Kennedy has taken a sharp turn to the left. What's the catch?

Probably just him attention whoring like he's prone to do, since the media was talking about the vacancy and not which way his precious swing vote was gonna go.

Kennedy co-authored the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and the Texas legislature essentially thumbed their nose at that ruling with these regulations. It's not at all surprising he would vote against this, no need to turn to more histrionic explanations.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hurray! If there is a god, thank you for taking Scalia when you did. This is a great decision and a great day for our country.

Irrelevant to this having a majority.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Great news!

And once Clinton helps finish filling the federal judiciary with liberal judges, pro-lifers can finally take a break, because Jim Crow-like attempts to regulate abortion out of existence will be shut down for over a generation

Jim Crow-like?  Jesus Christ, Virginia.  I'm pro-choice, but how can you conflate people trying to curtail what they see as an innocent life - even if they're wrong - with people trying to sidestep federal laws to prevent Blacks from being able to vote or go to public school?

Well, the rationale behind support of many Jim Crow laws was that black men would rape white women.

I'm guessing that connection made more sense in your head.

[Gass3268]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excellent News!

[Sir Mohamed]

Good news! Such restrictions are not just unconstitutional, they’re also immoral. Especially immoral when a bunch of Texas right-wingers want to make such important decisions for women, who should make them by themselves. I personally don’t like abortions, but as a last resort they should be possible and not been restricted to a certain point (third month).

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

And now we have an openly pro-abortion Republican nominee!

Abortion Today, Abortion Tomorrow, Abortion Forever!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Kennedy has taken a sharp turn to the left. What's the catch?

That he hasn't.  On abortion he's always been a moderate hero and all this decision did was strike down two provisions that claimed to be about protecting women's health but clearly had no purpose other than to restrict abortions.  I could see him possibly voting to sustain some of the new round of laws that essentially ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, but not something as sweeping as these provisions were in impacting 1st trimester abortions.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Kennedy has taken a sharp turn to the left. What's the catch?

That he hasn't.  On abortion he's always been a moderate hero and all this decision did was strike down two provisions that claimed to be about protecting women's health but clearly had no purpose other than to restrict abortions.  I could see him possibly voting to sustain some of the new round of laws that essentially ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, but not something as sweeping as these provisions were in impacting 1st trimester abortions.

Well, most SCOTUS analysts disagree with you on that, and they point at his Carhart vote.
But even so that doesn't explain his sudden change of heart on affirmative action.

[IceSpear]

Stupendous news!

Moments like these really show you how idiotic the "muh no difference between parties!" people are. Imagine if we had 2 Scalia clones on the SCOTUS for the past decades as opposed to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and and Stephen Breyer.

[Frodo]

Looks as if the conservative era on the court has just about ended -it remains for Hillary (and a Democratic congressional majority) to hammer the last nails into its coffin. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Kennedy has taken a sharp turn to the left. What's the catch?

That he hasn't.  On abortion he's always been a moderate hero and all this decision did was strike down two provisions that claimed to be about protecting women's health but clearly had no purpose other than to restrict abortions.  I could see him possibly voting to sustain some of the new round of laws that essentially ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, but not something as sweeping as these provisions were in impacting 1st trimester abortions.

Well, most SCOTUS analysts disagree with you on that, and they point at his Carhart vote.
But even so that doesn't explain his sudden change of heart on affirmative action.

Carhart was about very late-term abortions, not all abortions. Kennedy has clearly shown he views early abortions differently than late abortions. Ever since the oral arguments on this case it as clear he'd be skeptical of the Texas law so I don't know which analysts you were reading.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Kennedy has taken a sharp turn to the left. What's the catch?

That he hasn't.  On abortion he's always been a moderate hero and all this decision did was strike down two provisions that claimed to be about protecting women's health but clearly had no purpose other than to restrict abortions.  I could see him possibly voting to sustain some of the new round of laws that essentially ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, but not something as sweeping as these provisions were in impacting 1st trimester abortions.

Well, most SCOTUS analysts disagree with you on that, and they point at his Carhart vote.
But even so that doesn't explain his sudden change of heart on affirmative action.

Carhart was about very late-term abortions, not all abortions. Kennedy has clearly shown he views early abortions differently than late abortions. Ever since the oral arguments on this case it as clear he'd be skeptical of the Texas law so I don't know which analysts you were reading.

Here are two of them:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/27/opinions/supreme-court-abortion-decision-jeffrey-toobin/

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-29/justice-anthony-kennedy-turns-into-a-liberal

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I see both of them acknowledges and then ignored the fact that Kennedy doesn't live in their polarized worldview.  Not everyone views abortion and affirmative action as simple binary issues, and Kennedy is one of the most non-binary people in public life today. Support for early term abortions does not imply support for late term abortions.  Support for affirmative action does not imply support for quotas.  In both Carhart and Grutter, Kennedy found that the laws involved were attempts to achieve unconstitutional ends via figleaves purporting to not be such attempts. It's hard to see how one could have ruled in favor of Fisher in her case and left any constitutional means to achieve affirmative action.